So you DID answer my question? Show me where.
So you DID answer my question? Show me where.
Yet ANOTHER question you don't answer.
So you DID answer my question? Show me where.
I'm not saying anything is known to me without a believing mind.
I'm saying your premise is ambiguous for the reasons I just explained.
No. All knowledge on any subject requires belief. But there are things we can know about in QM where the thing known (as opposed to the knowledge about it) doesn't require a mind in order to exist or occur.How about in QM, is there anything in and about QM knowable without a believing mind?
You first.Just deal with what's be said to you instead of pretending it wasn't said to you.
I was...hence the question mark. Did you miss that? <--that's another oneIf you are asking me a question,
Do you even answer questions?then you just get the ask the question, you don't get to tell me what the answer is too. That's how atheists deal with everything.
You first.
I was...hence the question mark. Did you miss that? <--that's another one
Do you even answer questions?
Sorry...that was another question you won't answer.
My bad.
All knowledge on any subject requires belief. But there are things we can know about in QM where the thing known (as opposed to the knowledge about it) doesn't require a mind in order to exist or occur.
But the important thing here is that you really need to resolve the ambiguity in your premise.
It is the primary reason why your arguments here never gain any traction.
Look, you can still say the things you want to say. I'm just suggesting that you try saying them more carefully, and in ways that don't lead to people - your readers and yourself - confusing different things together. Wouldn't that be worth at least trying?
LOL.I did, but you just evaded it.
Yes. But answers don't matter to you, because you are not here to debate, you're just here to build up you hubris.
That's the thing about hubris, after awhile it just exposes your ignorance of God.LOL.
You funny, dude.
Have you ever answered a question here?
That was ANOTHER question.
He won't answer it...
Epic fail...again.That's the thing about hubris, after awhile it just exposes your ignorance of God.
Deal with what's being said to you and stop running away. Everything is belief based. And if it isn't in the form of a belief, then it has nothing to do with the truth or reality. God tells us to believe for a reason, because He uses belief to do everything He does. God doesn't do things to us, rather He does it with us; He believes with us and that makes us a part of His truth and reality = His Kingdom.Epic fail...again.
Answer my questions.
No. You stop running.Deal with what's being said to you and stop running away.
And I'm not deceived by your nonsense.If you really believed that you would not be deceived by this nonsense.
That's not what I said at all. Your reading skills are really bad. What I said was that while all knowledge requires a mind, there are things we can know about in QM where the thing known (as opposed to the knowledge about it) doesn't require a mind in order to exist or occur. The thing known does not require a mind, though the knowledge of it does.Well if there are "things we can know about in QM where the thing known" and "knowledge about it" "doesn't require a mind in order to exist or occur". Explain how and why you KNOW that if QM "doesn't require a mind in order to exist or occur" Newby?
Repeating the ambiguous language isn't dealing with it. A thing is not the same as the knowledge of it, so locating the one is not the same as locating the other. These are therefore two different claims with different meanings, so conflating them together is dishonest and produces ambiguity. Refusing to address this just means you are dooming yourself to further failure.There is no ambiguity in the premise, because there is no other way or place outside of a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known to exist. And your inability to show that there is another way or place outside of a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known to exist reinforces the this.
And I'm not deceived by your nonsense.
That's not what I said at all. Your reading skills are really bad.
What I said was that while all knowledge requires a mind, there are things we can know about in QM where the thing known (as opposed to the knowledge about it) doesn't require a mind in order to exist or occur. The thing known does not require a mind, though the knowledge of it does.
Repeating the ambiguous language isn't dealing with it. A thing is not the same as the knowledge of it, so locating the one is not the same as locating the other. These are therefore two different claims with different meanings, so conflating them together is dishonest and produces ambiguity. Refusing to address this just means you are dooming yourself to further failure.
I mean, if I had one guess as to which of this forum's members would be most confused about what reality is...
I suppose I'll let this thread be my answer.
No. You stop running.
Answer my questions.
No, I'm really not deceived by your nonsense.Yes you are...
No it isn't. And your reading skills are very much a problem.But that's what you said implies.
It doesn't. Starting with a false premise won't get you anywhere.If everything that is known to exist including all occurrences requires and entails a believing mind...
QM events do not need to be known in order to occur.And if "all knowledge requires a mind" and QM requires and entails knowledge too, then how is anything known and entailed in QM without a believing mind to make it known and/or to give wave function collapse and entanglement a way and place to occur?
The knowledge DOES require a mind. The thing known does not.If "the thing known does not require" or entail a believing mind for its existence, then how do you know it exists without YOUR believing mind making it known to exist silly?
Unsupported nonsense. Not all occurrences need be known in order to occur.In reality all knowledge and occurrences require and entails a believing mind to give it a way and place to occur.
As usual, you misrepresent what was said to be ambiguous, and you refuse to answer my questions on the topic.There is nothing ambiguous as to how and why the truth and reality is known to us.
Um...I are what?Sure you are.
Um...I are what?
You cannot and do not answer any question I've posed to you.
You lose.